This is an interesting and helpful review of Elliott's collected essays. That is really a daunting book to review and Dan has done a good job of summarising. Dan says he has been persuaded to come over to the correct view of Hebrews 2.9 through reading this book. He also offers some general comments on thoroughgoing eclecticism and some critical reflections. Only on one point did I think he missed a trick. Dan mentions that he found a lot of typos in the book, stating: "I counted over 150". I would have thought that in the spirit of Keith Elliott we deserved the entire list!!!

In 2006 at the SBL International Meeting in Edinburgh I met Kathleen Maxwell for the first time. There I heard her present a fascinating paper on “Paris 54 and Garrett 3” and I had the opportunity to chat to her afterwards and offer some small advice on textual criticism. Since then we have met several times at various conferences through the years and today we are both members of the IGNTP committee.

In her Edinburgh presentation Maxwell had mainly approached these MSS – Paris 54 (16) and Princeton, Garrett 3 (1528) – as an art historian, and had
found a remarkable link in regard to the illuminations. In Garrett’s
texts there were curious red crosses which, as it turned out, indicated
the exact places of the illuminations in Paris 54, and she demonstrated that they were textually related too (by using a few examples from the Text und Textwert-volumes).
In fact it turned out that another MS, Athos, Iviron 5 (990) was connected to the group. A comparative study of these three MSS is now included in her monograph as a special appendix (Appendix C).

At one point in Maxwell’s presentation she told us the story of how she had phoned
Bart Ehrman and asked him if he had seen similar red crosses with this
function elsewhere. Ehrman had not, but told her to phone Metzger, which
she did (“it was almost like calling God” - she said), and Metzger
kindly replied that he had not seen anything of the like either.

The Paris Codex Grec 54 is curious for many reasons. The bilingual diglot from the 13th Cent. (=Greg.-Aland 16) was dubbed by Gregory “the rainbow manuscript” (Canon and Text, 372) since it uses a range of different colour to indicate different speakers:

bright red ink: simple narrative text

darker red/crimson ink: the genealogy of Christ, the words of angels, the words of Jesus

This study affirms the importance of a multidisciplinary approach in the study of a complex manuscript such as Paris 54. While nothing specific is known about the origins of Paris 54, a very plausible explanation can be posited for virtually every aspect of this manuscript, including its unfinished status.

Description
This is a study of the artistic and political context that led to
the production of a truly exceptional Byzantine illustrated manuscript.
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, codex grec 54 is one of the
most ambitious and complex manuscripts produced during the Byzantine
era. This thirteenth-century Greek and Latin Gospel book features
full-page evangelist portraits, an extensive narrative cycle, and unique
polychromatic texts. However, it has never been the subject of a
comprehensive study and the circumstances of its commission are unknown.
In this book Kathleen Maxwell addresses the following questions: what
circumstances led to the creation of Paris 54? Who commissioned it and
for what purpose? How was a deluxe manuscript such as this produced? Why
was it left unfinished? How does it relate to other Byzantine
illustrated Gospel books?

Paris 54’s innovations are a testament
to the extraordinary circumstances of its commission. Maxwell’s
multi-disciplinary approach includes codicological and paleographical
evidence together with New Testament textual criticism, artistic and
historical analysis. She concludes that Paris 54 was never intended to
copy any other manuscript. Rather, it was designed to eclipse its
contemporaries and to physically embody a new relationship between
Constantinople and the Latin West, as envisioned by its patron. Analysis
of Paris 54’s texts and miniature cycle indicates that it was created
at the behest of a Byzantine emperor as a gift to a pope, in conjunction
with imperial efforts to unify the Latin and Orthodox churches. As
such, Paris 54 is a unique witness to early Palaeologan attempts to
achieve church union with Rome.

Contents: Introduction; Paris 54:
codicological and paleographical considerations; Paris 54: modus
operandi of scribes and artists; The Greek Gospel text of Paris 54 and
New Testament textual criticism; The three artists responsible for the
narrative miniatures and evangelist portraits of Paris 54; Imitation and
innovation: a comparative study of the narrative cycles and evangelist
portraits of Paris 54 and Athos, Iviron 5; Paris 54’s place in
thirteenth-century Constantinopolitan book illumination; Art and
diplomacy in late thirteenth-century Constantinople: Paris 54 and the
union of churches; Epilogue: from Constantinople to Catherine de Medici;
Appendices; Bibliography; Index.

Reviews: ‘Based on extensive new research, this
ground-breaking study places a richly illuminated Byzantine Gospel Book
between East and West at a crucial time.’
John Lowden, Courtauld Institute of Art, UK

‘With
its bilingual text, polychrome script, and extensive Gospel cycle,
Paris, gr. 54 is the most intricately planned and opulently produced
manuscript of late thirteenth-century Byzantium; it is also among the
most enigmatic, an unfinished effort devoid of testimony to its patron
or intended purpose. Professor Maxwell offers a compelling theory about
its conception in a Constantinople torn by tension over the union of
the Churches. But her meticulous examination yields something yet more
fundamental. Her keen visual analysis of the processes of Paris 54’s
production and the codex from which its miniatures were copied is
matched here by a comparably detailed analysis of its Greek Gospel text
and the manuscript from which it was copied. Her demonstration that
Paris 54’s text has a genealogy as independent and revealing as its
codicology and illumination is a signal achievement, and it opens a
challenging new chapter in the study of illuminated books.’
Annemarie Weyl Carr, Southern Methodist University, USA

Friday, March 28, 2014

The Digital Humanities at Oxford Summer School
(DHOxSS) is an annual training event taking place on 14 - 18 July 2014 at the University of Oxford for researchers, project
managers, research assistants, students, and anyone interested in Digital
Humanities.
The main information concerning the Digital Humanities at Oxford Summer School
2014 is located at http://dhoxss.humanities.ox.ac.uk/2014/. Including pages for:

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Dan Wallace has a helpful interaction with Craig Blomberg's new book on believing the Bible, especially in relation to the chapter on textual criticism of the NT (which mostly seems to focus on Bart Ehrman). Dan is positive about the book, but the nine errors he notices in chapter one are unfortunate, and they are also suggest that Craig B. is a bit out of his comfort zone with this material. I sometimes wonder how much thorough accuracy really matters in apologetics?

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Tomorrow I am heading for Oklahoma City for a conference on Dating Early Papyri and Manuscripts with the Green Scholars Initiative. In addition to my academic paper on some obscure subject connected with the palaeography of the early papyri and meeting up with some old academic friends (and making new ones), and speaking in a church for the father of one of my students; I shall also be checking some things for our Codex Climaci Rescriptus project. While I'm there I'm hoping to get to the Banjo Museum, the Cowboy Museum, and I'll be looking for Route 66 and the way to Amarillo. Here is clip from the previous conference:

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Ed Andrew Edmondson, working on a PhD in beautiful Birmingham, sent in the following:

John 12:15 quotes Zechariah 9:9: “Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey's colt!”. Most of the manuscripts read ο βασιλευς σου (your king), but a small number read ο βασιλευ σου - or is that ο βασιλευς ου since there are no word boundaries?Surely it isn't intended to read “the king is not coming” (ο βασιλευς ου) - so is “ο βασιλευ σου” a legitimate alternative?

Consider John 12:15 in manuscript 1014, for example, which seems a clear case of a single sigma:

Perhaps the scribe missed out one sigma, either by design or error. Or perhaps this could be an unexpected use of the vocative... Now consider Matthew 21:5 in the same manuscript, which contains the same quote from Zechariah:

That has two sigmas... so it doesn't seem that this scribe would habitually miss one out. So was it just a mistake in his copying of John?

Interestingly, considering the same two places in manuscript 382 we find only one sigma in each place. So perhaps that scribe did deliberately write this with only one sigma. A few words earlier in John 12 he did write ο βασιλευσ του ιηλ (the king of Israel) – so he wasn't against the form βασιλευσ.

So why do we find this reading? Is it merely phonetic and/or just a different way of writing the same variant? Or is it a genuine variant using the vocative (or even the negative)?

And so should it be regularised away, or left in the critical apparatus? We were trying to answer this question in ITSEE today...

The British Library have announced that images of the British Library portions of Codex Sinaiticus are available through their Digitised Manuscripts collection. A quick look here suggests that they are the same images as used for the Codex Sinaiticus Project, so I'm interested in whether this additional resource will be helpful in ways that the CSP is not (feel free to comment on this, I don't have time right now to check such things). There is a helpful bibliography and other information, including reference to a forthcoming volume: From Parchment to Pixel, ed. by S. McKendrick and D. C. Parker, London (forthcoming) - this is presumably the publication of the papers of the Sinaiticus conference in 2009.

Friday, March 21, 2014

Another recent interesting article to add to Peter's recent list; apologies for not posting it when it appeared in January:

Juan Hernández, Jr., "The Creation of a Fourth-Century
Witness to the Andreas Text-Type: A Misreading in the Apocalypse's Textual
History," New Testament Studies 60
(2014), 106 – 120.

Abstract: "The publication of Josef Schmid's landmark work on
the textual history of the Apocalypse seemingly established the Andreas Text
Type as a fourth-century product. The primary evidence for Schmid's claim came
from the fourth-century corrections of the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus,
corrections which bore a close resemblance to the Andreas text of the
Apocalypse. Schmid's reconstruction, however, is flawed. The fourth-century
corrections he identified are actually from the seventh-century. The data
supporting a fourth-century Andreas text do not exist. Schmid's widely
influential error appears to have been based on a misreading of Milne and
Skeat's "Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus."